^Fair enough. Thanks for clearing up the math. Even so, $21M per year in a city budget that is consistently shifting money between competing priorities just to break even could go a long way towards funding things that would allow us to be proactive (public safety investments in the form of community resources, better funding for grass cutting/LRA maintenance, etc.) rather than reactive.
Additionally, if the aim is to increase population, and thus the tax base, a serious discussion needs be had about increasing density (i.e.--incentivizing projects that increase density in high development risk areas only). We're making progress on the jobs front, but not quickly enough to make a meaningful dent.
I'm with you on population loss and jobs. The incentives are a piece of the puzzle that, employed properly, could help turn the tide in those two areas. Part of a larger fix, to be sure, but as good a place as any to start, especially since new jobs and increased density both usually stem from new development.
Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk
Additionally, if the aim is to increase population, and thus the tax base, a serious discussion needs be had about increasing density (i.e.--incentivizing projects that increase density in high development risk areas only). We're making progress on the jobs front, but not quickly enough to make a meaningful dent.
I'm with you on population loss and jobs. The incentives are a piece of the puzzle that, employed properly, could help turn the tide in those two areas. Part of a larger fix, to be sure, but as good a place as any to start, especially since new jobs and increased density both usually stem from new development.
Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk





